Get rid of minimum wage and replace it with Living Wage, then let's implement a Maximum Wage. We don't need a few Greed-Addled and Entitled assholes hoarding million$ and billion$ while we have massive poverty. Christ, why do I even have to say that!!!

Fixing the monetary problems in this country is the solution to pursue. Its a much larger solution on wages than simply chasing tails and raising the "minimum". If you dont stop the actions that are causing it, the minimum will always be just that- minimum.

He stole Grover's "kill Gubmint in the tub," Mama Grizzley's "Drill baby drill," and Raygun's "Shining City on the Hill" hallucinations, and they want 'em back! And the ghost of Lucy is going to kick his fake Ricky Ricardo ass!

Rubio has no idea about how the Financial Crisis happened. Watching him talk about that had me infuriated.

Everything he said was wrong. At no point in time was he even close to saying an actual fact. Everyone in America is now dumber for listening to him. I awarded him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

They AIN'T brainwashed!!! They know full well what they are doing. They are proudly pushing "fuck the poor, deregulate everything, allow monopolies" trickle down ideology because that is what their corp 1% oligarch puppet masters have paid for.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws thus
being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are - and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless storing your guns.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance
[ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun registration fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

The nra will fight against this –
but will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the nra emplyees –
the gun companies - understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers
and free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.

Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as
semi-automatic rifles & pistols
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

Is the nra & its trolls claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation?
Did England ban violence in movies? Did it legalize drugs?

Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

Scalia - yes that Scalia - has stated the AR15s are NOT “protected” by Article 2 and that government can regulate them
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That link could be between you and an bushmaster.
During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. "We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.
"Some limitations undoubtedly are permissible because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."
"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms. The court ruled that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Scalia pointed out that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
"My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time," he said. "They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."

Interesting statistics. Thanks. Interesting that the number of gun homicides per capitia appears much smaller in proportion to the the number of guns owned in other countries as compared to the U.S.A.. This leads one to think that something else is going on other than just the degree of gun ownership is what contributes most to gun homicides.

It is the truth - but why would it matter? Why would I lie about it?
I did attend many anti-Vietnam war meetings and demonstrations that probably had a preponderance of Democrats.
I did do some work for Norman Segal of NYCLU against bork
does that count?

Good. I will be doing lunch at the new Tapas place. I will also be over at the little Greek grocery store. You know where that is at? There are several places right next to each other that I need to go to. Is this enough time? Enough detail of a location?

How did she put it? Is this the part where she shows the world another way of life?

That's good that you post the events, and I too get a lot of emails, but cannot be in NYC as much as I would like, so i pick and choose

Everyone here has taken a somewhat different approach too, and that too is good, and some people like me also go through different phases in our contributions on here. It's all good if it progresses our cause

A lot of people here are not near active movements, and some of the "real actions" as you call them might seem kind of remote to them

It does not mean that we/they are stagnant, but rather they're just doing what interests them most, and there are other ways for them to contribute to the movement as you know

One of the negatives of having the trolls on here is that they divert the attention of people that want to see this movement succeed

More and more though, you are seeing people here with small differences putting them aside, and joining in and blitzing the people who are the real threats, and we are getting better at seeing it as time goes on

You can fight with family who dearly want to see this struggle succeed, but when somone attacks a family member, the battle-axe swings the other way

One of the other positives is that they, trolls are proving to be a good training ground for arguing our case in the real world

I know that my literary & verbal skills while far from perfect have greatly improved 'cause of them there asses..lol

Best of all though, this forum has been a great place to learn and share ideas

"We are the strong, the power is ours: we are many, they are few. We are living in times of crisis. Let's embrace this time for it is the only time real changes are possible by the masses."......from Occupy London

It is a good start for the Swiss, but Iceland is going for a more systemic change

A false and dangerous idea. Resistance for resistance's sake renders impossible the filtration of ideas into good and bad baskets; an act that stalls progress to the point of a full stop.

Instead, logic must guide our resistances. Each situation and idea must be weighed carefully so that we way understand its unique aspects, its advantages and disadvantages. Only after this careful analysis may we decide to resist or not. Ex: Resisting a great idea because of the logical fallacy of ad hominem or appeal to motive is a grave mistake.

Furthermore, we must decide which bad situations and ideas we will resist and how we will resist them. This is important because we have limited energies and resources. We must focus on the most important features of our enemy, the Global Elite which controls our world through their shear economic dominance.

A better explication is that we must resist bad situations and ideas and embrace good ones. And, this concept affects situations and ideas which not only emanate from outside Occupy, but those which come from inside Occupy as well.

Occupy has shown us how to resist what must be resisted, but it must work harder on how to encourage what should be encouraged. We must hoist a new framework for society as we tear down the old one. Leaving a void would be extremely dangerous as it would create a window of opportunity for those who wish to build an even more corrupt framework than the one we dismantled.

Occupy should start creating anarcho-syndicalist run businesses. This is a model which we must encourage through real-life working examples.

Nevertheless, our main focus now has to be in reaching to the masses, and educating them in to what has been going on, and who has perpetrated it

True, but such a difficult task to accomplish without presenting a working alternative. People get tired of hearing complaints, and rightly so. You can only scream "anti-capitalism!" for so long. There comes a time when you must accompany your grievances with solutions, at the very least probable and practical solutions.

Occupy touted the idea of "general assemblies on each street corner" as a way to replace representative government, but during GAs occupiers ended looking more like kindergarteners quarreling than intellectuals making important decisions. We can find all kinds of reasons why the general assemblies didn't work - perhaps consensus was not implemented properly, perhaps we were infiltrated, etc... -, but we have to admit to ourselves that this really hurt Occupy's reputation amongst those outside our movement. Ironically, it ended up giving more credence to the representative system we are fighting against.

My opinion is this was Occupy's biggest mistake; to start the protests without a well grounded plan of what should replace the representative system once it is removed. The ideas of direct democracy, general assemblies, not making demands, etc... were poorly explained to the first occupiers who joined the anarchists. Hell, most people didn't know the protest was anarchic in nature. Some blame ignorance, but I think Occupy should have come clean from the beginning and should have carefully explained the theories of Thoreau, Graeber, etc... that it was asking new members to adhere to in practice.

That being said, I don't think it's too late.

However, it's absolutely crucial that we start showing the world how a community type governance is possible. This is why I advocate that Occupy fully support the creation of an e-democratic platform to replace its general assemblies. If we can't create an Internet based system by which we can accomplish the task of decision making for Occupy, then there's absolutely no way that we can hope to offer a democratic system for the people that is better than the current system of representatives. We have to lead by example.

We should also start creating anarcho-syndicalist run businesses to show that it's possible to operate a business communally. Again, we must lead by example.

For me, these are the two most important things we should be doing. Protesting against specific issues has merit, but it does not attack the foundation of the problem, it only attacks particular symptoms. Unless we have something of worth to replace capitalism and representative democracy I really don't think we'll get too far. Curbing the current problems by attacking various symptoms only delays the inevitable. Even if we manage to turn down ALEC, etc... the leaders of the world will turn around and shove some other evil plan down our throat.

I am glad that you agree that Occupy must stay outside the system

I'm one of the first persons on this site who actually understood what Occupy was all about. Unbelievably, many here still don't.

Reaching out to the masses is our top priorty because without being successful 'there', nothiing else will be possible

Occupy can walk, and chew gum at the same time.

They can protest...RESIST, reach-out, and apply pressure in a wide assortment of ways, and Occupiers can choose whatever they are best at...whatever interests them most, or whatever they are capable of doing....for me I have chosen to answer your divisive bullshit...lol

And while all that is happening Thr@ssy, other people in OWS can, and should explore different ways to have a more participatory system

And that to a big degree is happening in the many affinity groups who have adopted modified versions of consensus

Look at these groups like 'laboratories' like the states have been to the federal government, with the major difference of course being, having people's interests put first, and foremost

So let's not get bogged down with all the other stuff, and forget what our main focus should be...... reaching out to the masses

It's much easier to reach out with a solution that works than with ideas being tested in laboratories. There's all kinds of scholars who wrote about what should replace capitalism. We don't really need laboratories. What we need is to present those solutions. Occupy is losing support at this time, not gaining it. I'm certain that if we start showing real solutions in practice like well functioning anarcho-syndicalist businesses and that we show that e-democracy is possible by using it ourselves we will start reaching out to thousands upon thousands more. This applies to the whole world, but especially to America where people love solutions more than complaints. America is a country where stuff is built. Let's start building the new world. We don't need politicians and representatives. We can start right now by ourselves.

What are you now the self appointed OWS rule maker.When did you wake up and say gee I own this forum.Get a grip and start to organize.All you do is RANT.Call names and get hysterical.Although you feel that you own this forum because you live here you do NOT!

I like the milk and I do not need anyone to tell me what I can and can not do.I also think you need to get a fuckin grip.I do not play by your rules or anyone elses.That may be fine for you but that is up to you.You should be concerned with organizing or did you fall in love with posting rants.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (790) from Port Jervis, PA 0 minutes ago
I like the milk and I do not need anyone to tell me what I can and can not do.I also think you need to get a fuckin grip.I do not play by your rules or anyone elses.That may be fine for you but that is up to you.You should be concerned with organizing or did you fall in love with posting rants.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

I answered your dare below. It's not much of a dare in that it's not something difficult or scary (to protest against the banks). I just think it's utterly useless. I don't want to waste my time trying to fix symptoms when I can work on finding solutions to the core problems. In any case, can you show a dent created in the banking world by Occupy? Did protesting the banks really make a difference? I don't think so.

We are working on the solutions, but we definitely know what the problems are

The problems are evident and were evident long before Occupy came along. Scholars have been talking about the problems of capitalism for decades now. Hell, Plato even explains some of the problems occurring today 2,500 years ago in his Republic.

The challenge is to find solutions. We shouldn't pat ourselves on the back for pointing out problems. That's child's play.

If Occupy had advertised itself as being anti-capitalist, I may not be here now

That slow radicalization I went through will be emulated over and over again as people are educated to what has went down, and still is

And NO, you have not answered my dare

Don't you get it?...very few people here trust you,( I know you do) - So why if these things that you are constantly promoting are so important to you... would you not want to build people's trust in you, and take my dare on?

For the record I told him about building trust as well, last Friday. To quote myself:

"And I think you should consider Odin's suggestion if you want anyone to take you seriously. Start putting up some worthy posts to show your sincerity. Maybe people will come around. And maybe a few less insults might not hurt. Be less critical of people here, they're only human. Swallow your pride, check your ego, be more humble."

I don't care about the trust of the people. I think it's a logical fallacy to judge an idea based on what one thinks of the proposer. The only thing I care about our ideas. Twinkles, Stinkles, high-fives, etc... do not interest me in the least.

Very few users on this site are able to debate adequately using arguments of worth. I like those people. I want to out them quickly. The best way to do so is to lose the trust of the users on this site purposefully. That is what I do. Once that's done, only the real deal remains. It saves me a lot of time.

I have no motivation to take up your dare because, as I've explained, I think it's a complete waste of time to protest against banks or to otherwise offer resistance towards them. I don't even like the concept since resisting the banks gives them symbolic power.

By realizing we don't need banks at all, by creating solutions that don't rely on banks, then we bypass them all together and this is so much better. The problem with banks is a decoy. You only need to fix that problem if you stay inside a capitalist framework. If we sidestep that framework altogether, then the problem disappears by itself.

We can build sub-communities within capitalism which are run with anarcho-syndicalism. If that solution is viable, these communities will grow larger and larger until they completely replace capitalism.

So you think we should rather opt in to coops, as more effective, than protests?

Many people including myself are not clear on coops, what they are, how they work, etc?

You are most clear in descriptive skills, please help us clarify the concept of coops.

Maybe this is a means many would find more logical and meaningful.

If people opt out of the corporate systems, those systems should weaken. What are coops and how can the people find and join them.

Also, even if protest is not effective in huge change, of banks. it can get some people to stop and think. Mostly people who still have a free mind. It did get government to slow down foreclosures, and I read somewhere those foreclosed on unjustly may have been entitled to compensation from a recent court settlement, but I need to research this a bit more been to busy with new granddaughter born 3/2.

Reaching out to the masses is our top priorty because without being successful 'there', nothiing else will be possible

This is important, but many groups have been doing that for many years. Anti-capitalist movements did not start with Occupy. I don't think this should be the main focus.

What makes Occupy different is the idea that the people can run the show. The idea that anarcho-syndicalism is not dead and can operate in modern day societies. Unlike the many other anti-capitalist groups and movements out there, Occupy started by wanting to show us how we could organize ourselves without the need for representatives. This was the key aspect of Occupy and why general assemblies were so important.

Occupy must focus on refining those solutions it proposed and on creating electronic versions. That's what it's here for.

We don't need just another anti-capitalist protest. There's already tons of those.

Thr@ssy I'm glad to see i am keeping you busy in your quest to divide this movement
~Odin~

It makes me happy that you provide me a canvas upon which to share my ideas with the readers of this site. Your obsession to rely on only logical fallacies to defend your position gives more weight to my ideas, but it is a shame really. Offering our readers good quality debates would more readily force bad ideas off the stage and push the good ones further to the front, and it would make this site look a lot more serious. A lot of intellectuals are turned away from this forum because all they see is logical fallacies instead of good quality debates. I'm glad I don't participate in soiling the forum in this manner. I try to lead by example by backing up my claims, by taking the time to write as best I can, etc... Hopefully, one day the others here will follow in my footsteps. If not, the ratings of this forum will continue to dwindle. With logical fallacies, you only attract people who cannot think sharply. Only those types of people enjoy and root for someone insulting another user with ad hominem. These tactics turn off the intellectuals we should be encouraging.

I don't believe attacking the symptoms is the best way to spend our energies. All lot of people are talking about resisting big banks, but does it make any difference? I don't really think so. Can you show a dent to the banking world that was created by Occupy?

I believe in attacking the problems head on, not the symptoms. If we create anarcho-syndicalist run communities than we won't need big banks. We can use coop banks. We could even create our own coop bank. That's what I believe will make a difference.

You'll accomplish nothing by protesting against banks. You'll accomplish something by creating a framework where big bankers are no longer needed. That's something real and we can start today.

When you keep a Republican from public office you have done something, if a Republican takes public office America loses, when no Republican holds public office anywhere in America only then will we be safe.

As far as the rest goes it is useful only to the extent it keeps the GOP out of office, the GOP don't care about your protest and will fight for the rich no matter how big the protest are, the onl;y real solution is to remove the GOP from office.

I wish Jart would just kick your ass and we could call it a day, Ain't no we are all on the same team. You suck ass You sucked ass yesterday, You sucked ass the day before that. You sucked ass last month. You sucked ass last year. In fact, not once have you not sucked ass.
Just stop.
Stop sucking.

More logical fallacies. Typical. If this site was created and run by the community, then it would be possible to enhance the security of the site. Iv'e explained in detail how we could easily create a better system to deal with sock puppets and those who disagree (the ones we call trolls).

The problem is, jart has not updated the code on this site for 5 months. She doesn't care about it anymore, that's why she doesn't work on it anymore.

A person who is here for insidious reasons is not capable of an honest, constructive debate
Get some rest. You have another divisive day tomorrow...lol
~Odin~

More logical fallacies. Still, no arguments to show how protesting banks create change. Sad indeed. I would find it embarrassing to support my ideas with only logical fallacies. I guess that's because I have a PH.D and studied the art of debate for many years.

I'll pick up this discussion with someone who is properly schooled. I don't care if they disagree with me. I just want proper debates so we can both learn. I think engineer4 is pretty sharp.

Please do find someone else to peddle your crap on
Any person with an ounce of integrity, and that knows who he is, will not let himself be redefined by you,
And they will not fall for the faux superieor outlook that you have of yourself, as he will know the extreme opposite to be true
Laughing, I must say that i find you amusing tho...
~Odin~

I am not here to redefine anyone. Only weak people let themselves be redefined by others. I am here to debate seriously by expressing ideas and taking the time to provide arguments to back them up. I think your ideas would have much more impact if they were backed up by arguments instead of logical fallacies.

Do you realize you haven't provided a single argument for your claims in this thread? All you did was throw around logical fallacies. You should be ashamed of that. I asked you to show some evidence that protesting banks had an impact and you were unable to do so? Why should people follow your idea of protesting banks if you can't even show them the benefit?

Ideas are like children. We should cuddle them and give them all the care in the world, else they cannot blossom properly. Care about your ideas. Use arguments to support them. This is the first step towards intellectual rigor, and such rigor is needed to affect real change.

For some reason, proper debate scares you. Perhaps you don't have much experience in that field. That's OK. We can all learn.

Let's see....1. You don't like protesting big banks...2. You do not like petitions or other initiatives....3. You do not like the forum administration...4. You do not like our approach...., and 5. You will not go after the big bankers...in a really BIG way for two months as I dared you to.. to prove you are one of us..
There's much...much more, but you get the picture, and so do we!
~Odin~

I don't see the usefulness. I asked you to show some results, but you can't. I think protesting banks amounts to very little because they have full control of the show.

Petitions are useless, especially online ones. I would even say they are dangerous as they fool those who sign into thinking they actually did something good when they did nothing at all. Can you point to an online petition that changed something in politics? The fact is, politicians don't base their decisions on online petitions.

The forum administration is autocratic. Jart even goes as far as calling herself "The Duchess of Occupy" on her twitter feed. I don't think the main forum for a community group should be run by one dictator. It should be a community effort.

There's many things I like about Occupy and have said as much.

A falsity based on your misunderstanding of my position. I want to go after big banks, but in a different way than you. Your way accomplishes nothing, and when I ask you to provide evidence to the contrary you cannot. I believe we should attack the core or the problems, not the symptoms. By focusing our energies on creating anarcho-syndicalist solutions we will crush the banks in a big way. By protesting we get nowhere.

We have different opinions and that's fine. The main difference between us is that I provide arguments to back up my opinions. You do not. Your ideas are based on a blind belief of what you've been fed, and you have no arguments and evidence to back them up. You just attack my position with logical fallacies thinking it dents it somehow. It doesn't. A new arrived reader will see this in an instant. The sad part is there are good arguments for your position. You should use them. I don't understand the point of attacking an idea or an opinion by using name calling (troll), or other logical fallacies. It achieves nothing, and even diminishes the worth of your position. It makes you look desperate.

I'd love for you to show us how Occupy's protesting banks changed anything in the way economics are run in US. Even a small thing. If no change has been created, I think my position is logical (that protesting banks is a waste of time). If you can provide arguments and evidence to support your claims, then I'm more than willing to change viewpoints. I embrace all ideas, even those coming from the biggest enemies, as long as they are backed up by sound logic, sound arguments, and facts.

If I read between the lines, you seem to be saying that if I don't agree to the ideas you presented then I shouldn't participate in Occupy. This sounds extremely cultish to say the least. I think we should accept any participation and ideas that are backed up with logic and arguments. A person like me who is not afraid of presenting ideas that don't jive with the Occupy gurus is much more useful than someone just following the herd.

My ideas could be wrong, but that's good. What's important is that I tabled them with arguments. That gives them some weight. You can't simply dismiss them with logical fallacies. The more you do that, the more time you waste. Either you don't try to debate at all, or you do so in correct fashion. Anything else is useless really.

Or, perhaps you only post comments to make yourself look good to your friends on this forum. If that's the case than carry on. Most people here do that. It's fine, it's just a form of entertainment. And, we all need entertainment. It's fun to create a mob against a certain user and attack him or her with logical fallacies. It gives a short term impression that our ideas our right, and those of our victim are wrong. But, it's just an illusion.

So, I ask, do you post only to attack me? Is that what satisfies you? Or are you interested in a deeper debate where we put logical fallacies aside and really work on the ideas themselves?

This is a reply to shooz's comment below. There are no more replies there and he doesn't have another comment in this thread so I'll post it here. I'll notify him so that he can respond if he so wishes.

1.) Can't argue with this. It's an old tired paradigm. If it wasn't a felony in most places, I would advise tagging them with appropriate slogans.
2.) Bullshit. Where do you live? They are one of the few things that do work.
3.) This is ad hominem AND a red herring. Slap yourself.
4.) You should probably stress those things more than you do.
5.) What way is that? Please keep in mind, you need to spread this out to some 300 million people.

We agree! Amazing. However, I don't think it's in the spirit of civil disobedience to forgo activities that might land us in jail. Laws are made by politicians and these people are bought by the crooks running banks. That means we shouldn't take all laws too seriously. Mandela was a great man, and he used a lot of property destruction as a form of civil disobedience. I'm not against this. He went to jail many years, but his actions and his integrity were able to affect real change. There's something to be said for that.

i don't think online petitions work at all. Like many anarchists and activists, I call it slackivism. It just gives the illusion that one is helping. However, I'm open here and will change my mind if you can show examples of online petitions that made a difference. Do you know of a law, a principle, a decision, anything that was influenced by an online petition?

Odin claimed I didn't like the forum's administration, and I replied that jart (the admin) was autocratic. Your reply is that this is an ad hominem an a red herring. A) red herring. I'm not sure why you think this is a change of subject. He asked about the forum's administration and I replied about that. It's right on target. Where do you see a red herring? B) ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you attack the proposer with an insult instead of attacking the argument. In this case, jart is not the proposer. She's a crucial part of the argument. We are talking about forum administration. I think she is autocratic. If we were debating whether George Bush was a good leader and I said that 'No, he isn't because he lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction to invade Iraq' that would not be an ad hominem because we are debating George Bush. What you are doing is akin to saying that calling George Bush is an ad hominem in the example debate I just gave. Please read up on red herrings, ad hominem, and other logical fallacies. Now, the fact is the forum administration (jart) is autocratic. There are forums rules that have been decided undemocratically. Bans are undemocratic. Nothing is decided communally. DKAtoday is quite right when he says "This is jart's forum, if you don't like it get out!". True indeed. She runs the show how she likes it. The problem is it shouldn't be that way. This is Occupy's main forum and should be run as a community because Occupy is a movement about communal effort. Again, I'm open to changing my mind. Simply present some evidence to show this forum is not autocratic.

They are all over the forum in various posts and comments. It's not my fault you only stress the criticism I pose. I know you don't like dissent, but it's important. I point to what's good and bad in equal manner. And, even if I never pointed to anything good it wouldn't matter. There are all kinds of ways one can help Occupy. To serve as a harsh critic is one, and there is no prerequisite that a critic need also be someone focusing on the good.

I've talked about my solutions in many other comments and threads. Basically it's a two step process based on showing by example. 1) Create an e-democratic platform and use it as a decisional process tool for Occupy to show that it's possible to get a community to affect change from online decisions. 2) Create anarcho-syndicalist based businesses to show it's possible to run a coop efficiently. We need to reach more than 300 million people. Occupy is not only for US. It's an international movement. Do not forget that. However, we don't need to reach all these people in one day. By doing the examples I noted above we will be showing real solutions. This will attract more people exponentially. Resisting and expressing grievances is good, but it gets old very fast if we don't present working solutions to fix those things. And, many groups have been protesting and expressing grievances with the capitalist system for decades. Occupy is not the first here. What Occupy can do is get the community together and offer workable solutions. I think if we start building the better society that people will come.

4.) No they're not. You've only been here for a day, so it's not possible. Plus you added in more of those logical fallacies you claim to HATE so much when you detect others using them. Slap your self twice. Really hard.

5.) OK, so now you have to spread it to billions. I was trying to cut you some slack.

1a.) You keep saying that, but where is it?

2a.) How many high profile examples of this business practice have you created, and how will you protect it from the predatory practices of WallStreet and the markets? They will not be created in a vacuum.

Until we get there, we should be supporting and encouraging the unions we still have.

In the end, you should try and be clearer, simpler and a lot more truthful.

I don't see the point in biting the hand that feeds us. It's a waste of time. What we need to do is learn to feed ourselves. We can create situations for ourselves where we don't even need banks. Iv'e been using a coop for over 10 years now. If you build an anarcho-syndicalist run business with your friends, or with other occupiers then you also do without CEOs and power structures.

But, honestly, I'm curious. What kind of resistance are you talking about vis-à-vis the banks? Protesting on the sidewalk? Does that really accomplish something? Again, I ask earnestly, can you show an example of a dent created in the banking world by Occupy? If you can show me some kind of effect against banks that Occupy had then sure, I'll join the protests once in awhile. I just don't see the point. Please, guide me here. Show me something.

Let's see....1. You don't like protesting big banks...2. You do not like petitions or other initiatives....3. You do not like the forum administration...4. You do not like our approach...., and 5. You will not go after the big bankers...in a really BIG way for two months as I dared you to.. to prove you are one of us..
There's much...much more, but you get the picture, and so do we!
~Odin~

Get what picture? That we have a different opinion. That's fine. Different opinions should be welcomed at Occupy. We are not in a cult where those who think differently should be excluded. We are trying to build a better world for everybody. That means we must be open to a plurality of viewpoints.

You are not here to have an honest debate
Rather, you are here to be as devisive as possible
And you only want to debate so that you have a platform to accomplish your mission which is most likely a paid one
How's that for honesty?
~Odin~

It's your honest opinion, but it does not make it fact and it does not defend your position in any way. We can let the readers decide. They can make up their minds for themselves. I think it's important to defend one's position, but I accept your opinion that it is not. I'm sure many readers will agree that dishing out logical fallacies is just a waste of time. It blows my mind that you bother to do this. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. In any case, I have to thank you since it makes it easier for me to share my ideas. Having some kind of debate challenge would have helped me refine them I'm sure, but I can find someone else for that.

I wish Jart would just kick your ass and we could call it a day,
Ain't no we are all on the same team. You suck ass You sucked ass yesterday, You sucked ass the day before that. You sucked ass last month. You sucked ass last year. In fact, not once have you not sucked ass.

Let's see....1. You don't like protesting big banks...2. You do not like petitions or other initiatives....3. You do not like the forum administration...4. You do not like our approach...., and 5. You will not go after the big bankers...in a really BIG way for two months as I dared you to.. to prove you are one of us..

Continuous propaganda exceeds the individual's capacities for
attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance.
This trait of continuity explains why propaganda can indulge in
sudden twists and turns.' It is always surprising that the content
of propaganda can be so inconsistent that it can approve today
what it condemned yesterday. Antonio Miotto considers this
changeability of propaganda an indication of its nature. Actually
it is only an'indication of the grip it exerts, of the reality of its
effects. We must not think that a man ceases to follow the line
when there is a sharp turn. He continues to follow it because he is
caught up in the system. Of course, he notices the change that
has taken place, and he Is surprised. He may even be tempted
to resist—as the Communists were at the time of the German Soviet pact. But will he then engage in a sustained effort to resist propaganda? Will he disavow his past actions? Will he beeak
with the environment in which his propaganda is active? Will he
stop reading a particular newspaper? Such breaks are too painful;
faced with them, the individual, feeling that the change in lice
is not an attack on his real self, prefers to retain his habits

Are you worried that more and more people are realizing that Ocupy Wall Street is not a partisan movement

Why did it take a year and a half for people to start realizing Occupy was not a partisan protest? Wasn't it obvious? Is it because most people are dumb, or because Occupy failed to advertise properly? Many people on this site, like the members of Twinkle Team (shooz, DKAtoday, shadz66, VQ, GirlFriday) still attack anyone with a different viewpoint than their own. Those who submit grievances against Occupy and those who are not democrats are quickly booted away by these self-appointed gatekeepers of this site.

Like Stéphane Hessel we all have to leave this vibrational frequency range as we "shuffle off this mortal coil" at some point & go settle our karmic accounts, so wonder what you're going to do when you too ...

Of course not. You're replying so you were able to read my comment. It's there for everyone to see. It's not behind your back, it's in the wide open. A comment behind your back would be in a private message. Don't worry about that. When I talk about you it will be in the open.

Finally, the propagandist must use not only all of the instruments, but also different forms of propaganda. There are many
types of propaganda, though there is a present tendency to combine them. Direct propaganda. aimed at modifying opinions and
attitudes, must be preceded by propaganda that is sociological
in character, slow, general, seeking to create a climate, an atmosphere of favorable preliminary attitude. No direct propaganda can be effective without pre-propagand which, without direct or noticeable aggression is limited to creating ambiguities, reducing prejudices, and spreading images, apparently without purpose. The spectator will be much more disposed to believe

Where's your Twinkle Team partner? I haven't seen him around. Usually, you always gang up on me together making the flurry of logical fallacies and lame insults all the more turbulent. Without Batman (DKAtoday), you look almost like a little boy Robin. You seem lost and frail. And, your twinkles don't go up so fast.

It has always been obvious to me that Occupy is not a partisan movement, as it has been for many others here

There were people I believe early on who thought this was a partisan movement...some have changed their views and some have not

And there are people here who have continuously believed out of conscience that it should be partisan, and that's fine. I respect the fact that they are following their beliefs, but no I do not agree

The people who you have impugned, and categorized as being in the "Twinkle Team," I consider friends/comrades in a common stuggle

Yes some of us have had our differences, but realize for the Greater Good....for UNITY to overcome them because we probably realize how important that attribute will be in the Herculean task that we have taken on

They do fight for the greater good like us. I just call them the Twinkle Team because they twinkle each other and stinkle their enemies, instead of twinkling good ideas and stinkling bad ones. Like you, they care about the proposer more than the idea.

They also act as the self-appointed guardians of the forum which is sort of cute. I like how shooz always follows up after DKAtoday. Like Batman and Robin. They operate from the same retirement home. There's something poetic in that don't you think?

Why? You don't like retirement homes? I have a few family members in a retirement home and it's a wonderful place for them. There's a beautiful garden, they meet new people, there's all kinds of activities planned for them. When they moved there, it's like they became young again. I think it's neat that shooz and DKAtoday live in the same place. Don't you?

I will always remember when I thoughtlessly berated a poster here who had beliefs that were contrary to mine, and i told him that he should get out bed or something, and out into the streets

He reminded me that all of us cannot do that...and I felt terrible for having said that, really shitty

The Bridge to the Ground is perfect for people like this. It's made so that everyone can participate and affect change, even if they cannot make it to the ground because of whatever reason, health being one of those.

I made that poster a promise, probably a year ago now, that I would never stinkle him. I do believe he told me that was not necessary, but to me it was, and I never have, not intentionally anyway

What kind of useless promise is that? If that person made a comment you thought was bad, you should stinkle it. If a comment is good, twinkle it. That's it. Stinkle or twinkle based on the ideas alone! I find it lame to no ends when people twinkle their friends and stinkle their enemies. The purpose of twinkles and stinkles is to help readers see which comments are worth reading, not who you, frovikleka, made a promise too, who's your best friend, or who are your enemies. We care about ideas.

For all those who have health issues, for all the older people out there (in retirement homes or somewhere else), for all those who cannot make it to the ground I say:

Thus all modem propaganda profits from the structure of the
mass, but exploits the individual's need for self-affirmation ; and
the two actions must be conducted jointly, simultaneously. Of
course this operation is greatly facilitated by the existence of the
modem mass media of communication, which have precisely that
remarkable effect of reaching the whole crowd all at once and yet
reaching each one in that crowd--by Jaque Ellul

What is divisive about wanting to communally build an e-democratic platform for Occupy? A platform enhancing the participatory possibilities of Internet users throughout the world to the level of being able to influence economic and political action. It is the path towards unity, not divisiveness. To empower each person to have a real voice, a voice which can affect change, a voice with meaning - so that they can be real participants in society and social movements, not mere observers like the users of this site.

While corporate pigs eat cakes and drink rum in the comfort of satin boxers, and while you spend your time painting the walls of this forum with logical fallacies like punk wannabes tag buses in the style of a dog marking his territory with a growl and a little leak, I'll be working on something that really matters. Something to unite Occupy and bring the movement back to a respectable energy.

Bankers are like you. They lack color. They lack complexity. They lack spirit. They just do their simple thing over and over and over again.

I think you're trying to be divisive with your attempt to push aside the idea of e-democracy. Luckily, you're doing all your pushing with logical fallacies so it doesn't work at all. Honestly, I think you're a paid republican. You're scared at what might happen if the people are empowered with eTools that can really make a difference in how democracy created. You're a professional, so your background story is tight, and you're little stories about working with the affinity groups is a nice touch indeed. How long have you been paid to kill off amazing ideas before they really hatch and become big?

You do realize your work here is hopeless. People will realize sooner or later that e-democracy is the future. You can't hide that with all the spin in the world.

Damn President. He also wants to sequester a lot of us out of government jobs. Ok, so it is probably a plot; the Democrats blaming the Republicans, and the Republicans blaming the Democrats to keep us working folk all mad at each other so as to keep us from getting together and realizing its really the ruling oligarchy who is sticking it us; to keep us from getting out the torches and pitchforks, marching on D.C., and burning the wretched place down.

Priceless. The constant strained look of constipation on Boehner's face. This is what happens when your party is full of crap. For God's sake. Shit it out already. Heavy doses of laxatives to expel the Tea Party knuckle draggers and other various libertarians.

The key is to redevelop industries which produce high wages as a minimum, such as manufacturing. In high-tech manufacturing, workers are highly productive, due to their ability to use, and at higher levels of skill, install and repair advanced equipment.

This could be done through a New Deal style economic development program, which would produce millions of decent paying jobs in its own right, building advanced infrastructure.

This would automatically initiate a high demand for high tech manufactured goods, which would also provide high paying manufacturing jobs.

As workers are attracted to these high paying jobs, low paying employers will find it increasingly difficult to attract workers, unless they raise their wages as well. However, This shouldn't be a problem in an economy with lots of good paying jobs, since business will be good for everybody.

This was how the "American System" of economics was originally set up by people like Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey and Abraham Lincoln. It's an economic system which results in a win/win solution for everybody.

It's our own heritage, it's what has always worked for us, and it's what we should dump free trade / globalization to return to.

What you refuse to recognize is that we damn the president for things like signature strikes,double taps (bombing an area while rescue workers are trying to help people from a previous strike, NDAA, etc. Not the rare cases he doessomething progressive.

I can never figure out what bensdad is saying. Anyone that replies with on sentence or make a post with one sentence is asking for his buddies to read his mind....

And then there are those that make these vague statements referencing something political or a federal policy, but don't take a postion, don't reflect knowledge of the systems, and ... well you don't know if these guys have an opinion on how to solve the issue or not.

I assume Bensdad and some others don't understand any systems they complain about. Why, because they never list any bullets of what they would do, how the system works, what the problem areas are to be addressed, ... or in general What the hell they are talking about

Everyone learns differently. If I type one sentence. You have to read my mind to know me. Can we ever really know each other.

Now here it is like 2 weeks later. My mind is in a different place. I'm thinking He meant "we need jobs, not a minimum wage". Wait he could have meant "yes, we need a higher minimum wage, but it is riddiculus to even talk about COLA attachment since COLA calculations are suppressed".

I bet if you described what he said, ... he would come back and correct you with more detail. You never heard of the communitcation test. Get a room of people and start a message by whispering in someone's ear ... then tell them to whisper in someone's ear and pass it around the room.

What issue. I'd like people to understand that I come from a different place than they do. I can't read everyone mind. Communications is difficult. People often misunderstand me. people in my family seem to come from different spaces, different generations, different experience. I don't have roots. I've seen a little of the world, Europe, I speak a little foreign languages, i've lived in foreign countries... I don't like US Politics, and don't like the two party system. I don't like money's corruption of everything, of education, of history, of science ...

I agree with Bensdad on some things. But people in here should show that they understand some aspect of an issue ... if they want me to respond ... I don't know how to respond to some people. Besides many people just don't dig in to details ... and it shows if they post one sentence.

I'm sure that is my whole point now. I made a statement about posting, but I wasn't clear.

Were you happy with Obama or not? Today, maybe I feel more cconfident that you want a minimum wage increase, so ... I guess you support Obama here.

Yesterday, I wanted to point out that the Cost of Living is manipulated by the government which has pluses and Minuses. It saves the government money to underestimate the cost of living increases. Often Federal Retirements and Social Security payments are raised based on the CPI or cost of living. Actually federal salaries are also compared to the change in cost of living and salary in private industry... but I notice federal salaries are described in opposite ways compared to private salaries based on who's data or survey is used. Anyway, beef is not on the basket of goods used for cost of living increases. As you know many things that are expensive are not used in looking at cost of living increases. But houses, autos, food, restaruants, transporation, edcuation, health care keep increasing in cost.

So, if cost increase are attached to minimum wages, probably it is not going to be accurate, but it will be cheaper the way the government does it. Cheaper might be sustainable and therefore might be better way to manage the situation.

Of course many jobs are excluded in any Minimum wage increase which may or may not be an issue for you. Retail employees or service employees would have to be specified in any legislation to see any benefit. The details are important.

And we are still hearing about job layoffs related to Obama care. I'm just not sure what this will mean if there is a higher minimum wages. There could be an economic bumb in higher consumer spending from the minimum wage hike.... but some people may be layed off?

So, if we dont have a copy of the legislation can we really comment? No, probably not. We can't predict if bar tenders or waitresses will see layoffs or pay increases. I don't think there has ever been legislation that linked cost of living to a minimum wage... has there?

QE1, QE2, QE3, and buying of federal bonds by the Federal Reserve "Pumps Money into the Economy".

Higher Minimum wage will cause businesses to either increase prices or get more efficient. The result will either be fewer employees, ... or a fewer employees with robots/automation, ... or increases in production and market share realized only through automation/robotics.

Well, it is only my opinion. My opinion isn't worth much. I might be missing something, but if wages go up management is stressed into some major decisons regarding wages, benefits, and efficiencies.

20 years ago I probably wouldn't have thought that a minimum wage would be such a strain. But today, I see people so fussy about their perks like a big home, a new expensive car, a nice second car, some toys for the weekend, vacations, lots of new clothes ... and on and on.

The Facts on Raising the Minimum Wage When Unemployment Is High
Increasing the Minimum Wage During Rough Economic Times Does Not Kill Jobs
AP/ David Zalubowski

Recent studies show that increasing the minimum wage even during hard times is good policy, providing higher pay but no loss of jobs. By T. William Lester, David Madland, and Nick Bunker | June 20, 2012

Raising the minimum wage would be good for our economy.
A higher minimum wage not only boosts workers’ incomes—something that is sorely needed to boost demand and get the economy going—but it also reduces turnover and shifts businesses toward a high-road, high-human-capital model.

Still, some policymakers may be nervous about increasing the minimum wage while unemployment is so high. Yet, both the federal and states governments have raised the minimum wage numerous times during periods of high unemployment and the evidence indicates that employment has been unaffected.

A significant body of academic research has found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job losses even during hard economic times.
There are at least five different academic studies focusing on increases to the minimum wage made during periods of high unemployment—with unemployment rates ranging from 7 percent to 12.3 percent—that find an increase in the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment levels. The results are likely because the boost in demand and reduction in turnover provided by a minimum wage counteracts the higher wage costs.

Similarly, a simple analysis of increases to the minimum wage on the state level, even during periods of state unemployment rates above 8 percent, shows that the minimum wage does not kill jobs. Indeed the states in our simple analysis had job growth slightly above the national average. In our analysis we reference five academic studies of the minimum wage that include periods of high unemployment, cover different geographical areas and different time periods, and use a range of methodologies—from small case studies to large econometric analysis—lending great credibility to their findings. The most recent studies are considered significant improvements over all previous studies because of the methodology employed. One recent study, for example, used the same methodology as earlier studies finding a small disemployment effect on teenagers, but the newer study controlled for the condition of the regional economy, something previous studies had failed to do. Additionally, other recent studies have examined U. S. counties that border one another but had different minimum wages (because they are in different states). All the studies came to the same conclusion—that raising the minimum wage had no effect on employment. Moreover, all of the studies included cases where the minimum wage was raised during a period of high unemployment. These studies should go a long way in assuaging policymakers’ fears and boost their willingness to raise the minimum wage.

To help highlight the results underlying these academic studies, we provide a simplified analysis of state minimum wage increases during periods of high unemployment.

We examined every state minimum wage increase from 1990 through 2011 where the state unemployment rate was above 8 percent. We then compared the rate of job creation over the next 12 months following the minimum wage increase in these states to the national average.

Of the 35 cases where a state minimum wage was increased during a period of high unemployment, 21 saw job increases over the next year at a rate faster than the national average, while 14 witnessed job growth at a rate below the national average. The average rate of job creation for a state after a minimum wage increase during a period of high unemployment was 0.48 percentage points above the national average.
The median employment growth was also slightly above the national average.

A few states, including Alabama and Tennessee in 2009, saw 12-month job increases well above the national average. Some states, however, including Michigan in 2008 and Arizona in 2011, had significantly worse employment outcomes than the national average. But the average state that increased its minimum wage had 12-month job growth that mirrored the national average, with most states doing slightly better than the national average.

Likewise, separate analysis of minimum wage increases that occurred as a result of federal action versus increases coming from state action yields nearly identical results—national and state employment growth virtually matched.

While this simple analysis does not have the rigorous controls required of full-blown academic research, these results provide additional evidence demonstrating increases in the minimum wage are unlikely to have harmful effects on employment. When combined with the academic studies, these more anecdotal findings provide a compelling picture of the employment effects of the minimum wage.

Policymakers should feel confident that raising the minimum wage would not have harmful employment effects and instead would likely provide the kind of boost in consumer demand that our economy sorely needs.

Yes, thank for the reminder. Some truths are not intuitive. And when looking at Money, Fiat Currency, Monetary Policy, Fiscal Policy, Military Spending, and Economics ... sometimes what seems like Common Sense ... like managing the Federal Government Like a Family Budget ... is the opposite of the truth. We need money flowing in the economy, so it seems a lot of government cutbacks will damage the economy.

It is always complicated. I forget a lot of the time to look for other sources to validate findings. But my ideas of cuting Military spending by $400 Billion per year also include ideas to put the money to work in other sectors of the economy... and of course we have to think about investment in R&D if there is no Industry in that area.

The previous hikes in Minimum wage could be clearly legislation that helped the economy. But perhaps we should first look to see if our economy is largely a different economy than we have had in these last min wage hikes. We seem to be largely a service economy and really few employees produce products in the USA.

I sort of have to guess that State Min Wage Laws used in the Study, measured government debt increases along with Economic Strength and Employment levels over ... extended periods of time.

I assume that Minimum Wage Studies of States largely set aside Retail, Bartenders, Waitpersons, and Restaurant workers ... since they don't get enough hours to be full time. But I might be missing the full impact of the Studies. I'm thinking School Teachers, day care workers, and Government workers get the biggest part of the boost from Min Wage Increases.

But as you remind me, some of this is not inuitive at all. Looks like I have to send an email to someone from the website.

Today, we know most of our governments are in debt and municipal bonds are very risking across the USA. Could be the minimum wage increased government debt???

Minimum wage should be at the very least, 12 dollars an hour/ 25,000 per year and that's still super poverty level after taxes and obamacare deductions. In reality, a person needs to earn at least 30,000 a year gross just to support themselves ( no family), accrue some savings and afford housing. It can be done but even at that income a person really has very little security in the event they lose their job unless their employer is providing other benefits.

Really? I happen to be a small business owner and I'm no where near "dripping in wealth". As a member of my local Chamber of Commerce I know of no small businesses that are dripping in wealth.
So either you are abysmally ignorant or deliberately lying to spread Marxist propaganda. I vote for the latter.

How much of a salary increase? And farm labor is just the first step.
If a minimum wage increase of the degree being discussed is implemented at every step, that would incrementally increase consumer cost, I imagine?

I, honestly, did not see the state of the union. I did record it and will watch it tonight probably. I just didn't want to yesterday; I have to prepare myself. That said, I am not making any comment until I watch it.

Occupy is supposed to be about solving problems created by both parties, not being the cheerleaders for one of them. He's always been here to promote electing Dems into office no matter what. He attacks Republicans for doing something but ignores Democrats doing the same thing.

I thought this was an idea about revolution and change, but maybe I wa wrong. Who cares what politicians do as long as they say the right things. Vote for Dems!!!! Nah... kneepads don't fit me.

I think Occupy is about correcting the economic inequity created by the wall st takeover of the govt.

For 30 years we the working/middle class has fallen further and further behind because of the trickle down, weak regs, outsourceing, stagnant wages, union busting policies that we've been victimized by.

So It is the issues that matter. Dems have been spineless in standing against these policies, but only progressive dems have fought for us. And of late Occupy (and other progressive groups) have given more & more dems a backbone.

So while occupy stays out of politics directly we can certainly identify which politicians support the issues we do.

What happens when Citi funds both sides? Obama picks Lew and republicans and democrats fail to pass any real reform on the banks.

What happens when Boeing and Raytheon lobby Congress? They get billions in war profiteering.

What happens when KBR lobbies congress? They get billions in war profiteering.

Not a peep about stopping the provisions "allowing" them to indefinitely detain or even kill Americans without trial, evidence, nor oversight. There have been so many false allegations throughout the history of the CIA this is insane to trust them with such a high illegal authority. Khalid El-Masri is an example of an innocent person accused of being a terrorist. He ended up getting tortured for 4 months until the CIA figured out he was really just a random innocent guy from Germany. This is not acceptable. This is why we have laws and court systems; to prevent the innocent from being imprisoned and killed. This kind of lawlessness is inexcusable, especially when saying "a decade of war is coming to an end." Obviously this is a lie. Just like the signing statement was, while 3 Americans were killed that year and Bradley Manning was being indefinitely detained.

NOT A PEEP ABOUT THE FACT THAT OUR CONGRESS IS BOUGHT BY CORPORATIONS AND BANKS.

Not a peep about a constitutional amendment to reform campaign financing.

wow so some talking points should make me love someone who has had our country at war for years and years and has done nothing but give the banks billions of dollars? lol.

I believe in action, not politicians' lies. You may remember his campaign broke campaign financing records in 2008 and 2012.

How many banks did he accept money from Again? Goldman Sachs, Citi? What else? Didn't he just appoint the corrupt Wall Street de-regulator and mortgage fraud Jack Lew to the treasury? I wonder how much Citi had to pay for that.

How much money do you have to accept from Goldman Sachs if you're voting to give them 10 billion dollars and interest free loans?

Wow whatever excuses you need to give yourself for supporting warmongers who kill and indefinitely detain Americans who support monetary policy and bullshit legislation giving trillions of dollars to Wall Street.

If you democrats would vote for a real liberal in the primaries, you'd have your democrat that can win. But go ahead and keep voting for the corporate financed guy all over your tv. Propaganda is confusing isn't it? You're more and more confused with every new bullshit policy you have to make an excuse for.

What excuse was there for when Obama voted to give 10 billion dollars to Goldman Sachs or increased Afghanistan and the drone program? um um lily leadbetter makes it all okay doesn't it? Cough manufacturing consent cough.

Blind party allegiance. That will get you nowhere.

NONE OF WHAT I AM SAYING MEANS VOTE REPUBLICAN> Get that through your head.

"But go ahead and keep voting for the corporate financed guy all over your tv. "

Your solution is to vote for people who cannot win .
my solution is to sever the corporate financing from our democracy
which path do you think is more likely to work?
which path do you think has more public support?

maybe you'd vote for them if Goldman gave 'em a million to flash all over the tv?

How do you judge who can win? Is it based on your tv or your internet news that is based on your tv news? Why don't you vote for the real liberals in primaries? What makes people choose the corporate backed guys every time?

You know democrats never win in Texas. Should the democrats all just vote republican to make sure they pick a winner? Do you see how your method is flawed?

You want to end the war so you vote for the guy who wants to increase one.

You want money out of politics but you vote for someone getting the most money.

You're playing against yourself.

Have you ever heard of manufacturing consent?

The people funded by Wall Street are not here to save you from Wall Street.

And..employers are still firing and laying off workers now due to their inability to afford payroll and obamacare ( next year). Imagine having to pay a worker 15 or 18 dollars an hour AND provide benefits, worker's comp, etc... There is no way that even McDonalds will agree to that.

Get real - people WITH JOBS are living below the poverty level
They get government assistance so thier employers can maximize profits & dividends & executive salaries.
I call this corporate welfare - what do you call it?

Is it really a bit much to pay a hamburger flipper 18/hour? Let's think about this more deeply ( at the risk of making ourselves feel more depressed about our economic hardships). If an employer is paying 10 dollars an hour ( which is disgraceful to begin with) it's costing the employer about 16 dollars an hour to keep that employee on their payroll and that doesn't include any benefits or retirement ( on average, the employee costs the employer an additonal 40 percent of their hourly wage). Realistically, 18 an hour is what is needed for the average individual to earn a livable wage and anything less than that is poverty level in my opinion. 12.00 an hour is only 25 thousand GROSS..minus 25 percent minimum for taxes and that's poverty. Maybe it does seem a bit much to pay someone 18 an hour to flip burgers at McDonalds but is it? Realistically, it's one of the most important jobs they offer. It may not require a degree but it certainly requires a reliable, dependable and conscientious employee that keeps costly mistakes to a minimum customer satisfaction high which results in higher profits. Employers like McDonalds can get away with paying less for their most valuable positions because most people ( including those who work there) believe it's a mindless menial job with little value to the employer because anyone can do it. The bottom line is always hinged to production and hamburger flippers are one of the most important assets to a hamburger company. The managers of course have a lot more responsibility and should earn more than the cook but I guess my point is that 9, 10, 12 dollars an hour is a disgraceful and pathetic offer. We cannot afford to go on like this. People deserve much better and I'm not asking for anything that anyone doesn't deserve. No one should need to rely on credit cards for daily expenses or medical bills or even those unfortunate mishaps that occur in life. A flat tire can literally destroy a person's ability to get to work if they can't afford it. A person making 10 dollars an hour would not be able to afford a new tire unless they rob Peter to pay Paul.
I have a friend right now who makes about 52,000 gross a year as a tree climber. He lives alone, no family, no spouse, no computer, no cell phone and even he is struggling to make ends meet due to medical bills that his insurance doesn't cover. Ironically, he pays about 80 dollars a week out of his check for that insurance that doesn't really benefit him all that much.

It is helping the poorest among us. It is bringing the min wage to the level of1968!!! It is providing for automatic increases for these poorest decent hard working Americans!!

So we gotta do many things at once including getting money out of politics, and taking the peoples govt back from the corp 1% oligarchs!

That we agree on. But that effort is not an excuse for inaction on helping the poorest among us.

We must pressure ALL politicians who oppose this bare minimal increase, we must identify those politicians and force them to defy the campaign contributors who are squealing like stuck pigs at the thought of paying the poor a little more.

Do you support increasing the minimum wage? What about indexing it to inflation?

it's ok. Many do not support the increase. Not many Occupiers. And not many progressives. But many.